Lee, I don't think they are excluding sever storms. Those were mentioned in the news releases.

And drought is a recurring, natural part of the Southwest.

One of my sisters has lived in the Carmel, Calif area for over 30 years. Much of that time there she has been on water restrictions because of "droughts". Some years it was so bad she was fined hundreds a month if she went over on her allotment of water.

Other years there were the opposite extreme - flooding leading to mud slides. It's been going on like that in the Southwest for longer than we've been there. It's a land of naturally occurring weather extremes. Just like the Caribbean is prone to getting hurricanes.

And, . . how old do you think the name, "Tornado Alley" is and why it got that name ?

So now, we're supposed to believe one branch of our Government (that coincidently WANTS to tax us more) says weather is getting more and more extreme, while another branch of the same Government (that has nothing to do with taxes) says extreme weather is on the decline? ?

I've seen data compiled by genuine meteorological scientists regarding time trends in hurricane strikes, strong tornadoes, heat extremes, accumulated cyclone energy, wet/dry percentages and probably half a dozen others that I'm forgetting and none of them show anything that looks like a trend of "worsening" weather.

Personally, I think we should be building modern nuclear power plants. Anyone with a $2 calculator can calculate that renewable energy sources are never going to meet our energy needs.

No matter which side of the global climate change you are on, we should have better information on what the real CO2 numbers are from different fuels.

Rather than publish what a fuel in a lab has for CO2 per mmbtu, they should calculate the total CO2 involved in the whole life cycle of getting that fuel.

In the case of oil from the Middle East, how much CO2 is generated defending the politics of the fuel source, how much CO2 is given off in shipping, refining, etc.? How does that total life cycle CO2 compare to anthracite coal?

My friend designed and built one of the larger pellet maker plants in the Northeast. Pellets are not as CO2 neutral as people want you to believe. Most are not byproducts of sawdust from other operations. They are whole trees, which were reducing CO2, they use gas and diesel to harvest and haul them, huge amounts of electricity and energy to process the logs into dry, compacted pellets and then plastic to bag them.

That's pretty much consistent with the data I've seen, which shows actual mean temps have basically flat-lined for the past 17 years, and are below the "lowest possible" scenarios previously spread by the alarmists. The alarmists say "the science is settled", but the science says the trend is flat and the relationship with CO2 - the concentration of which has been increasing steadily while the temps have remained flat - is basically nonexistent.

Most people do not know, as its never reported this way, that any excess ( above normal) heat created on earth comes from the poles being microwaved by Solar flares that hit the earths atmosphere. When a flare, that's made up of positive and negative charges, comes in contact with the earths outer atmosphere, it splits up ( causing southern and norther "lights"). When this happens, some radiation gets through, affecting communications AND warming of the poles occurs. This creates a Latent heat that takes a few months to show up changing the weather. As it stands right now, Solar flare activity is at a 150 Year LOW. ( notice that hurricane season we just had??) In core samples in Northern 'Greenland", they have found the temp there was an average of 4 whole degrees WARMER... 1000 years ago... Wonder how "Green" land got its name?? While some Solar Flare activity has been noted recently, very little came towards the earth. WE are at the start of the downhill curve on this solar flare cycle, which means its going to be COLD. ( roughly 11 year cycles) Note recent weather, and its Not yet winter. I have had many discussions with real involved college students on Green house gases. I Always ask what they think of the ratio of 02 to Co2. They Always say its in decline and we cant stop it. After a change in conversation, I come back to Jr high Plant Biology. These same students AND professors have already said a few times how much Co2 humans, animals and Plants give off, and nothing about a volcano, or "leaking gases from the earths crust. I ask them so where does the Oxygen come from?? They blurt out water, and water vapor. I proposed, "IF we are Using so much oxygen, would we have less water on earth? " It seems that Nobody in education knows or is being taught that green plants give off HUGE amounts of O2 at night. ( why you shouldn't park your car on the grass at night). The warmer it is on earth, the More green plants grow, and the more oxygen is given off. The second half of Photosynthesis the global warming crowd does not want you to know. Bamboo here ( yeah its a pain) can absorb 1 quart of water per stalk, per DAY, those huge leaves just PUMP O2 at night ... Also there is Rock on Earth, found in the middle east, that Absorbs CO2 !! Grab your blankets and a scuttle of Coal....!

Ha ha,, Survialist.....would you care about providing a link to heat produced by solar flares and northern light, especially in relation to the energy we gain from the sun .

It is interesting to read thru this whole thread that spreads over such a long time and see how this drama unfolds.

Even if we.. are not responsible for warming of the planet that would not mean that we should not try negate it effects.With large parts of the ice melting and the sea levels rising land will get lost and people will get displaced.

We in PA are pretty well of for a lot of these effects but burning fossils fuels, just stored energy from millions of years is like trying to move your car on the starter motor, yes until the battery is empty. You did not get very far ahead, in our case maybe 150 years.

So we better start conserving and come up with a better plan. Fossil fuel is not evil but it is simply not appropriate for the future. The energy lobby does not like that and is best served by misinformation..... green coal... only when you paint it.

joeblack5 wrote:With large parts of the ice melting and the sea levels rising land will get lost and people will get displaced.

This theory proposes that the earth is a static object that never changes, but for mankinds actions. History shows the opposite to be true.

As a matter of fact, Earth's History (as we know it) shows the Earth to be a living breathing thing that has a set path it wants to take and makes changes on it's own to correct things that appear to be different from the intended path.

No I do not think so, it proposes that if you run a bulldozer over a forest that the forest is gone after that... and that if you have enough bulldozers that indeed that change can be larger then the changes that the earth had figured out for herself.

If you mean to say that the earth will correct the effects of our behavior then of course I have to agree. But a lot of people will get hurt in that process.

joeblack5 wrote:If you mean to say that the earth will correct the effects of our behavior then of course I have to agree. But a lot of people will get hurt in that process.

Again, this theory requires the belief that the Earth is a static object, which I don't think it is. Also, it would mean that you subscribe to the 'Anthropogenic Climate Change' theory, I do not.

At one point in time, this earth was a giant fireball. At another point in time, this earth was completely covered in water, at yet another point in time, there were no icecaps at all, and during that time dry land was extremely abundant as shown by fossil records.

Yet all of this transpired long before man ever entered the picture. The only thing proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the fact that the earth is constantly changing, with or without man.

Well no one is disagreeing with the fireball. I clearly do not understand the meaning of your static part.Anthropogenic means influenced by human beings....indeed for the record I do..

but for argues sake even if the people would not be responsible for climate change and the resulting misery for a lot of very poor people ,... not us of course,..then not attempting to negate the effects of mothers nature own wishes to increase the temperature of her body.

Kind of you trying to do something about the fever in your child. Clearly that body is not static either.

joeblack5 wrote:Well no one is disagreeing with the fireball. I clearly do not understand the meaning of your static part.Anthropogenic means influenced by human beings....indeed for the record I do..

but for argues sake even if the people would not be responsible for climate change and the resulting misery for a lot of very poor people ,... not us of course,..then not attempting to negate the effects of mothers nature own wishes to increase the temperature of her body.

Kind of you trying to do something about the fever in your child. Clearly that body is not static either.

Static would mean.....never changing on it's own.........like a basketball.

I'll never believe in Anthropogenic climate change, not even for 'argues sake', there's too much evidence against it.